Sentences with phrase «true issue of law»

A claim for judicial review should not have been made (or permission to bring a claim should not have been granted) because the dispute disclosed no «true issue of law».

Not exact matches

Yet if the most important development in that doctrine in Caritas in Veritate is a strong linkage of the life issues to Catholic social - justice concerns, then it is also true that the challenge of this particular encyclical falls more sharply on those who believe that Roe v. Wade was rightly decided, and remedied an injustice in prior American law.»

This is true not only because penitence is possible only if one acknowledges the law and desires nothing so much as to fulfill it, but also because penitence inevitably issues in a renewed commitment to doing the will of God.

The same is true of many religious laws, though possibly not some of the particular ones that we of this time might take issues with.

If true, the dual - use nature of this technology may eventually raise issues for international law; it can also add further impediments to current efforts to develop legal regimes against weaponization in space.

And whereas, this Final Judgment does not constitute any admission by Settling Defendants that the law has been violated or of any issue of fact or law, other than that the jurisdictional facts as alleged in the Complaint are true;

The article Prophet Among Pinstripes in the April 2006 issue of Fastcompany magazine features James Montier where he gives his five laws about investing bias, evolution, and true happiness.

In Blawg Review # 131, Maister, true to his trade, focuses on issues relating to the business of law, from marketing to leadership to economics and even to blogging.

Without the overall context that a legal education provides, knowing what issues you should be looking for is difficult or impossible, and this is particular true in Anglo - American common law systems, where the law is embedded in an opaque network of appellate cases rather than laid out more or less completely in a carefully organized statute.

Data, if it were to be systematically collected from «the Ministry of Attorney General's Office, legal aid organizations and other (non) law - related groups,» could measure the true impact of technologically based responses to access to justice issues.

After peaking academically in high school, Alex meandered through an Ivy League college, law school and a legal career only to realize that his true gift was in making fun of the law, as well as his own neuroses, his raging hypochondria, his height (or lack thereof), marriage, and his relationship issues, particularly his wife's need to redecorate.

And it's true, you're right, there are probably plenty of lawyers and law firms who do have those tools in place but they're not using them, they don't know how to use them, or like you said, they just flat out don't want to use them as a way to prevent some of these issues.

The Sedona Conference ® exists to allow leading jurists, lawyers, experts, academics and others, at the cutting edge of issues in the area of antitrust law, complex litigation, and intellectual property rights, to come together — in conferences and mini-think tanks (Working Groups)-- and engage in true dialogue, not debate, all in an effort to move the law forward in a reasoned and just way.

Such is also true of their legal departments, as is shown by the absence of ERMS issues in almost all case law and guidelines concerning the use of electronic records as evidence, including the four Sedona Canada Principles texts; see: Why a Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems,» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 17 (pdlaw and guidelines concerning the use of electronic records as evidence, including the four Sedona Canada Principles texts; see: Why a Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems,» (2012), 9 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 17 (pdLaw Review 17 (pdf).

Correctness applies to (1) constitutional issues; (2) questions of general law «both of central importance to the legal system as a whole and outside the adjudicator's specialized area of expertise»; (3) the «drawing of jurisdictional lines between two or more competing specialized tribunals»; and (4) «true question [s] of jurisdiction or vires.»

The lead articles in Issue 19 of Management Solutions, «True or False: You Are What You Bill» and «New Approaches to Time and Performance» were reprinted in the August 2007 edition of Law Practice Today.

The standard of correctness governs: (1) a constitutional issue; (2) a question of «general law «that is both of central importance to the legal system as a whole and outside the adjudicator's specialized area of expertise»»; (3) the drawing of jurisdictional lines between two or more competing specialized tribunals; and (4) a «true question of jurisdiction or vires».

However, where a question of law falls into one of four correctness categories, the presumption is rebutted and correctness applies (Capilano at para 24): These are (i) constitutional questions regarding the division of powers; (ii) issues «both of central importance to the legal system as a whole and outside the adjudicator's specialized area of expertise»; (iii) «true questions of jurisdiction or vires»; and (iv) issues «regarding the jurisdictional lines between two or more competing specialized tribunals».

That issue is now available and, true to its subject, is openly accessible at the Journal of Open Access to Law site.

Regarding the second issue pertaining to the significance of the misrepresentation, the court ruled that the actions of the insured woman fulfilled the definition of «misrepresentation in insurance contracts» under state law in that «the insurer in good faith would not have issued the policy... if the true facts had been known to the insurer as required by either the application for the policy... or otherwise.»

Collaborative Law is worth considering if some or all of the following are true for you: (a) you want a civilized, rational resolution of the issues, (b) you would like to keep open the possibility of a viable working relationship with your partner down the road, (c) you and your partner will be raising children together and you want the best working relationship possible, (d) you want to protect your children from the harm associated with litigation between parents, (e) you have ethical or spiritual beliefs that place high value on taking personal responsibility for handling conflicts with integrity, (f) you value control and autonomous decision making and do not want to hand over decisions about restructuring your financial and parenting arrangements to a stranger (a judge), (g) you recognize the restricted and often unpredictable range of outcomes and «rough justice» generally available in the public court system and want a more creative and individualized range of choices available to you and your spouse or partner for resolving the issues.